Pro Lifers, what exactly do you think would happen if abortion was banned?

If abortions are to be against the law there would have to be a lot more billions spent on welfare since according to US stats over half of abortions are women below the poverty line and then others that are just above it which is like $10,000. Good luck raising a baby on that.

This group of pro life is also against welfare. So how does that work? If there are no abortions and there are tens of millions more people, who pays for it? This is why I can't really take this group of pro life people seriously. They haven't thought out anything past the abortions are bad so ban them.

Tell me pro lifers what do you think happens after your dream come true of banning abortions happens?

Since the 70's there has been over 50 million abortions in the US. So 30 million of these babies would be in very poor situations. Lets hear your compassionate plan to make sure these babies receive all that they need.

 

That's interesting, I was going to ask this exact same question to Pro-choicers.

 

The woman could have the baby and then get sterilized. If and when she decides she wants a baby, they could just give the baby back to her.

 

This is what I figured would happen. Divert attention away from the fact that you have no idea because you know that you'll never have to think that far ahead.

- - - Updated - - -

So your plan is to take the babies away from the mothers, place them in a baby orphanage and then hand them back to the mothers? Huh? Also that would still cost billions upon billions upon billions. Time to raise taxes.

 

It depends whether the woman has a baby that's in an in-demand category on the adoption market.

If it's the right type of baby — nothing wrong with it — there will be plenty of takers.

 

So you wanna take the baby away from the mother against her will?

 

Well, we can't be aborting babies one moment and then having babies the next when the woman decides now she wants one. A woman should make up her mind.

 

We did this in Canada to the natives. We took their kids and put them in assimilation schools far far away. We're still paying for that. Trust me. This is not what you wanna do.

 

Maybe the we are going about this the wrong way. Maybe the government should be paying people to get sterilized. Better than an abortion, in any case.

 

I'm down with that haha.

 

How can you abort a fetus one minute and then have a baby the next?


Yes, a woman should make up her mind not have it made for her by Anti-Choicers..

 

A. Either they really LIKE Big Government(despite claiming they don't).

B. They are too stupid to think that far ahead.


But I think it's because they are control freaks who want to demonize women for giving birth AND having abortions...and for existing and breathing and having sex and freedom and not obeying men.....

 

Yep most pro lifers are only pro life up until its born. Then its on its own. Kids gottabtake some responsability for itself right? Might as well get started ASAP.

 

Only two options....no "pro-lifer" has ever been able to logically argue against it becoming one of two scenarios-


1. The law would be relatively ignored and left unenforced except in rare circumstances. Poorer women would suffer but abortion rates would remain the same. (Middle class and Rich women would still be able to get abortions safely).

In other words, it would be a "toothless" law, intended only "for show" and so the supporters could be self-righteous and talk about how "moral America was" (and themselves of course).

2. You would need a totalitarian Gestapo police state aimed at women, to seriously enforce the law.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd say all three have been shown here in this Forum.

 

Some of those who oppose abortion are not necessarily "pro-life", but rather anti-murder. It's more about recognizing the right of every innocent human life not to be killed.

We already have one. All the mechanics are already in place.

If it's drugs or weapons, the government will find you.

Might as well use it to protect the unborn.

Just one example example: If all the passengers are already put through full-body scanners at the airports, maybe it could just be modified a little to detect pregnancy. Since google is handing over internet records and user logs to the government (just try typing in "how to make methamphetamine" or "how to make a pipe bomb" and see how long it takes for government agents to arrive at your doorstep), we could monitor any woman who searches for information about how to perform a late-term abortion on herself.

 

How about "anti letting the kid half starve to death while growing up in poverty and attending crappy underfunded schools taught by underpaid teachers and being driven into crime as the only way to survive?"

 

Yeah, better to kill them in the womb.

 

So you don't see the hypocrisy in that?

 

It's more like a paradox than hypocrisy.
No one cares about these unwanted people. Seems like those on the right are willing to oppress this group of people through deprivation or ignore it, while those on the left want to get rid of the problem by just getting rid of those affected.

So the question is: Which do you think is worse? Being terminated as a baby, or having to live a life of impoverishment (potentially)?

At some point, I think we as a society will have to recognize that reproduction is not an absolute right. Because apparently we don't think life is.

 

I am OK with this. For that matter if we could get the fundamentalists off the abstinence train and on board with easily available or even free contraceptives for all the abortion rate would drop all on it's own.

 

FWIW, I don't really support free contraceptives since that means someone else has to pay for them and it doesn't matter as long as anyone can just buy them. I guess your view is that they are only available to everyone if they are free for the taking?

 

Most of them are not against contraceptives, in fact many of them support contraceptives, even free contraceptives, so long as the life is not aborted after it has been conceived.

 

Where did I say that?
This is what I wrote:

Did I say "they are only available to everyone if they are free"? No, I didn't. Did I imply that I think that might be a good idea? Yes I did, and if you'd think about it for a minute you would see that paying for the contraceptives is a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for the kids!


You guys allways see more than I write. I wish I could do that.

- - - Updated - - -

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Show me.

 

The thing with contraceptives is tha people do use them they just don't use them consistently and then boom, pregnant. People are LaZy. We need to hit home that contraceptives and condoms be used every single time

 

Because of lack of affordable contraceptives, a child is born....someone else will have to pay for that child. A woman who cannot afford contraceptives cannot afford a child. No, we will NOT force her to give up the child for adoption because she cannot afford the child, we will help her with government money. Really now, would you rather pay for contraceptives or pay for a baby?